old house: survey?

phoebe1989seb

I'm going to be asking for trouble here, but when we bought our current property two years ago (200+ year old, thatched, stone, non-listed house of around 2500 sq ft) we didn't have a survey done :eek:

In our case, not only are we seasoned period house renovators plus we had a friend who is very knowledgeable on old buildings look it over, but also we could see for ourselves the state of the place......it was being sold as a *half-finished project* and the works already carried out and those that had not been were apparent to the naked eye.

For example, it was newly thatched (2008) and had a new oil heating system (2010), although I must admit that was questionable as the vendor had instructed the heating engineers to fit a brand new boiler in a part of the house that was in danger of collapse and that had a badly leaking slate roof, but as he was seriously ill at the time I believe he just let them get on with it

The vendor had also carried out timber treatments throughout for which he provided documentation. Damp-wise, we could smell it without needing a surveyor to point it out and as we are well aware that damp-proofing in old buildings is a waste of money, plus the house was uninhabited and unventilated, we took a view that this could be dealt with by judicious airing and getting the wood-burner going! The vendor had already stripped back all the internal plaster to bare stone, the floors d/s were in need of replacement (concrete for the most part) and the electrics very clearly in need of replacing as the main d/s rooms had no lighting for a start!

The price we agreed on the house reflected the work that required doing and as the house had already failed to sell at auction and the only other interested party couldn't get a mortgage due to the state of the house, the vendors were prepared to accept our low offer.

I definitely wouldn't advise less experienced buyers/renovators to do without a survey on such an old house, but having also experienced first-hand the errors some surveyors can make, I doubt we would bother with one unless we were buying a house that looked too good to be true.......but ours was a wreck and its faults were glaringly obvious

calicocat

phoebe1989seb wrote: »

I'm going to be asking for trouble here, but when we bought our current property two years ago (200+ year old, thatched, stone, non-listed house of around 2500 sq ft) we didn't have a survey done :eek:

In our case, not only are we seasoned period house renovators plus we had a friend who is very knowledgeable on old buildings look it over, but also we could see for ourselves the state of the place......it was being sold as a *half-finished project* and the works already carried out and those that had not been were apparent to the naked eye.

For example, it was newly thatched (2008) and had a new oil heating system (2010), although I must admit that was questionable as the vendor had instructed the heating engineers to fit a brand new boiler in a part of the house that was in danger of collapse and that had a badly leaking slate roof, but as he was seriously ill at the time I believe he just let them get on with it

The vendor had also carried out timber treatments throughout for which he provided documentation. Damp-wise, we could smell it without needing a surveyor to point it out and as we are well aware that damp-proofing in old buildings is a waste of money, plus the house was uninhabited and unventilated, we took a view that this could be dealt with by judicious airing and getting the wood-burner going! The vendor had already stripped back all the internal plaster to bare stone, the floors d/s were in need of replacement (concrete for the most part) and the electrics very clearly in need of replacing as the main d/s rooms had no lighting for a start!

The price we agreed on the house reflected the work that required doing and as the house had already failed to sell at auction and the only other interested party couldn't get a mortgage due to the state of the house, the vendors were prepared to accept our low offer.

I definitely wouldn't advise less experienced buyers/renovators to do without a survey on such an old house, but having also experienced first-hand the errors some surveyors can make, I doubt we would bother with one unless we were buying a house that looked too good to be true.......but ours was a wreck and its faults were glaringly obvious

Wow.....brave, but you are obviously seasoned pro's at it.

Got to say the house sounds fab by the way.

Lord_Baltimore

SG27 wrote: »

Haha that wasnt the only thing he mentioned!

He said there was high damp readings throughout, consistant with a property of this age. This is where a surveyor well experienced in old houses is a must. Anyone else would have immediately recommended £1000s of unnecessary damp proofing!

Wiring wasnt mentioned. Roof and guttering was said to be in a good state of repair.

He did mention some things to think about like adding some ventilation to the loft space to prevent condensation. Amongst a few other suggestions which I forget.

I was happy with my surveyor and considered it well worth the money.

The banks valuer on the other hand...

Fair enough. Look, it's your money and you can spend it like you want but in my experience, surveyors don't spot anything I can't spot myself. They just cover their backsides and charge us a fortune; it's a legalised confidence trick.

Read the excellent post by phoebe1989seb. She and her partner weren't suckered into paying a surveyor for a little book in which a surveyor ticked a few boxes and made some banal comments. They used a keen eye and some commonsense and saved their survey money to spend on repairs for the house.

Strapped

Yes.

If nothing else, it will help with negotiating the price.

SG27

Lord_Baltimore wrote: »

Fair enough. Look, it's your money and you can spend it like you want but in my experience, surveyors don't spot anything I can't spot myself. They just cover their backsides and charge us a fortune; it's a legalised confidence trick.

Read the excellent post by phoebe1989seb. She and her partner weren't suckered into paying a surveyor for a little book in which a surveyor ticked a few boxes and made some banal comments. They used a keen eye and some commonsense and saved their survey money to spend on repairs for the house.

If I was as experienced I would do the same. But unless something is completely obvious I wouldn't realise there was a problem I'm not knowledgable enough!

Lord_Baltimore

SG27 wrote: »

If I was as experienced I would do the same. But unless something is completely obvious I wouldn't realise there was a problem I'm not knowledgable enough!

The internet is your friend. You seem articulate and intelligent; certainly capable of the kind of assessments that so-called surveyors charge the earth for. It's all about a little bit of confidence and a systematic approach to surveying yourself so that you don't overlook anything.

No special skills are required; it's all a con trick, really. Save the money for doing up the property and avoid the little cottage industry whereby a surveyor simply tells you to call in a real specialist. Bloody cheek.

alanmilstein

OK, I'm a surveyor, and one who specialises in listed and historic buildings, so you would expect me to recommend that you get a proper survey carries out by someone who specialises in such properties, wouldn't you!

And the reasons are these.
1. Old buildings were often constructed using materials that are not commonly used today. So, when you repair them using modern materials there are often consequences that manifest themselves in all sorts of ways. A good survey will tell you about this and what you can/should do about it.
2. A good survey will not use the default "get further investigations" for any defects. Yes, it is almost a certainty that such a property will have damp. But is it damp that would normally be expected in such a building? Or something that is unexpected and due to some other defect?
3. A good survey constructs a comprehensive record of the property so that it can be monitored into the future. That ensures that you are protected in the event that some unexpected event occurs.
4. A surveyor will carry Professional Indemnity insurance to protect you in the event of something significant being missed. Your mate, builder, man who knows about these things, experienced old house buyer etc etc will almost certainly NOT have any insurance to cover you.

I could go on, and on, about the reasons why any buyer of an older property should have a full and comprehensive survey by someone experienced in older buildings. Yes, you will probably be able to renegotiate the price down on the strength of the survey (I typically find clients can get 5x or 10x the cost of the survey back), but most of all it's peace of mind and security.

moneyshoe

Lord_Baltimore wrote: »

The internet is your friend. You seem articulate and intelligent; certainly capable of the kind of assessments that so-called surveyors charge the earth for. It's all about a little bit of confidence and a systematic approach to surveying yourself so that you don't overlook anything.

No special skills are required; it's all a con trick, really. Save the money for doing up the property and avoid the little cottage industry whereby a surveyor simply tells you to call in a real specialist. Bloody cheek.

We are in Scotland so the 200+ year old house we are buying had already been surveyed at the sellers expense, it had very few issues on survey which gave us the confidence to buy an old property at the top of our budget. Of course it is going to cost us down the line but we already knew that the roof was new with a guarantee and that the boiler was new and having our impression that there weren't currently any major issues confirmed was reassuring.

Because of the Scottish system we see a homebuyers report on almost every house we view and whilst I do agree that a lot of surveyors seem to spend a lot of time suggesting that you get in damp and timber specialists and rewire every old house sometimes they do spot things we would have missed. It is also reassuring when a house gets a 'clean' survey as most surveyors do seem to err on the side of caution. I have seen things picked up on survey that I hadn't spotted though - like a house that had modern plumbing downstairs but still had the old lead pipes upstairs:eek:
I personally would not buy an older house with a full structural survey, if I had the experience of some of the posters on here then I probably wouldn't but I don't and although my husband and I are fairly smart and my husband is good at picking up problems with houses we don't trust ourselves not to miss something.

Lord_Baltimore

alanmilstein wrote: »

OK, I'm a surveyor, and one who specialises in listed and historic buildings, so you would expect me to recommend that you get a proper survey carries out by someone who specialises in such properties, wouldn't you!

And the reasons are these.
1. Old buildings were often constructed using materials that are not commonly used today. So, when you repair them using modern materials there are often consequences that manifest themselves in all sorts of ways. A good survey will tell you about this and what you can/should do about it.
2. A good survey will not use the default "get further investigations" for any defects. Yes, it is almost a certainty that such a property will have damp. But is it damp that would normally be expected in such a building? Or something that is unexpected and due to some other defect?
3. A good survey constructs a comprehensive record of the property so that it can be monitored into the future. That ensures that you are protected in the event that some unexpected event occurs.
4. A surveyor will carry Professional Indemnity insurance to protect you in the event of something significant being missed. Your mate, builder, man who knows about these things, experienced old house buyer etc etc will almost certainly NOT have any insurance to cover you.

I could go on, and on, about the reasons why any buyer of an older property should have a full and comprehensive survey by someone experienced in older buildings. Yes, you will probably be able to renegotiate the price down on the strength of the survey (I typically find clients can get 5x or 10x the cost of the survey back), but most of all it's peace of mind and security.

I admire your honesty in declaring your status.

You mention peace of mind and security and this might be the most telling part of your post; it is precisely these things that are used to unnerve potential clients; reel 'em in eh?

Typically, surveys I've experienced are by surveyors who use binnoculars to 'survey' the roof, won't move carpets, won't touch furniture, won't climb a ladder, won't test circuitry and certainly won't get their suit and tie dirty when doing a 'survey'.

What the resultant survey produces is the reommendation that a whole host of additional specialists should be called in at my expense to give the advice I thought I was paying for in the first place.

Bearing in mind that a survey precedes possible purchase, how many times am I suppose to bankroll this happy little clipboard bearing troupe?

moneyshoe wrote: »

we don't trust ourselves not to miss something.

Surveyors understand that; it's called peace of mind and security in the trade.

racing_blue

Thanks for all the replies. I like the sound of this:

alanmilstein wrote: »

A good survey constructs a comprehensive record of the property so that it can be monitored into the future.

...could be the angle which would sell the idea I think

Anyone NOT had a survey on an old building, then regretted it?